MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043333467 · doi:10.7202/602615ar

Events, Time and the Simple Form

2009· article· en· W2043333467 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Walter Hirtle

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de linguistique · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)VerbEvent (particle physics)Meaning (existential)LinguisticsSimple pastRepresentation (politics)Action (physics)Point (geometry)PsychologyHistoryComputer scienceEpistemologyMathematicsPhilosophyPolitical sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is an attempt to discern more clearly the underlying or POTENTIAL meaning of the simple form of the English verb, described in Hirtle 1967 as 'perfective'. Vendler's widely accepted classification of events into ACCOMPLISHMENTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, ACTIVITIES, and STATES is examined from the point of view of the time necessarily contained between the beginning and end of any event, i.e. EVENT TIME as represented by the simple form. This examination justifies the well known dynamic/stative dichotomy by showing that event time is evoked in two different ways, that, in fact, the simple form has two ACTUAL significates. Further reflection on the difference between the two types thus expressed—developmental or action-like events and non-developmental or state-like events—leads to the conclusion that the simple form provides a representation of the time required to situate all the impressions involved in the notional or lexical import of the verb.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de linguistiqueSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207